The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1887-10-06
A DIVISION ARGUMENT.
The Opinions of Delegate Clifford
on the Relative Expenses OF
Both Large and Small
State Governments. ..
A Mastery EpItOme Of Facts and fig
ures Tending TO Show the Suicf.
dial Folly Of the Large
State Idea.

| Dakota are soon TO nave an Oppoitu-
nifty of expressing their preference eth
er for or against the division of the
territory and the ultimate admission
of two states from within its borders,
by the ballot, the result of which must
at least be regarded as strong in
dex of public sentiment, and will have
a very important bearing and influence
upon the question.
The legislature having provided for
an election, it is the duty of every
| citizen to attend and vote, and there
| by express in the strongest manner
| possible his wishes in reference to this
important subject.
The arguments against division are
few-generally evasive-and very Of
ten appear to be advanced because the
parties really want an "excuse rather
than reason" for opposing the same.
We are told that large state will
be a glorious state, grand, magniti-
cent, and will be greatly admired us
such, and some people try to make us
believe that it will be much better and
more profitable to live in a large state
than in one-as large, say, as Mime
sofa, or in one about twice as large as
Wisconsin-which would be nearly the
size of either Dakotas if divided.
There may be something fascinating
but there is nothing real or substan-
tial in this.
Nobody ever goes or sends money
into large state simply because it is
large, nor from a small state simply
because it is small. Nobody ever
migrates to Texas or California be-
cause they are large, nor from Rhode
Island or Delaware because they are
small
Inducements and opportunities of
bettering ones condition in life cause
pCOtiO W So w dii SOuiCIs.
But we are told that great state
has more influence than a small one
politically and in governmental affairs.
If this be true the history of our
country is a mistake and should be re-
written,
The influence of state whether
great or small-is precisely what its
people make it.
Which states of our Union have had
a greater influence in it's affairs than
Massachusetts and South Carolina?
Always opposed to each other and each
always leaders in the views of their
people, yet both states together scarce
ly equal half the size of South Da-
kOta.
But, again, 1t is said the expense of
maintaining two state governments is
greater than that of maintaining one.
This is the most delusive and mislead-
ing argument used, or that can be
used against division.
at first glance people may say
this is true, because it costs more to
support two sets of state officers, leg
islatnres, etc, than it does one SET " :,
Now. as matter of fact, the sala-.
ries and per diem of state officers con-
stitute but very small part of the
expenses of maintaining a state gov
ernment.
Some of the states of this union have
been organized at least one hundred
years, and many of them. both large
and small, have been organized at
least forty years, so that we can learn
something from the history of these
states in reference to this matter of
state expenses. For this purpose we
will examine q few states.
Little Delaware has no state tax
whatever, and not cent of state in
debtedness. Licenses of different
kinds and the taxation of the property
of corporations pay the expenses of |
the state government. Not a bad
showing, surely. .
The state of Wisconsin, which is far
from being large enough for the anti
divisionists, is not bad example.
The state is practically out of debt,
and the amount raised by taxation on
the property of the people for state
expenses is only fifty cents per capita.
The balance of the state revenue is
raised by the taxation of corporate
railroads. etc. The expen-
ditures for state purposes is very near
$1.25 per capita.
The great state of New York, with
its millions upon millions of property
and five millions of people, presents a
different showing. The amount raised
for state revenue by taxation upon
property of the people aggregates
about $1.50 per capita, and state ex-
penditures reach very near 50 per cap
ita.
1t is an absolute fact that the peo-
pie of Delaware, almost the smallest
state and with the least population,
are less burdened by taxation than
any other state in the union, while
those of New York, with the greatest
wealth and population, are burdened
nearly the heaviest.
The amount raised for state pur
poses in Minnesota by tax upon as
sessed property is nearly sixty cents
per capita; of Iowa about fifty cents.
The state tax of Pennsylvania is
very light upon Individual property.
none whatever being levied upon indi.
vidual real estate, and the tax on per-
sonal property for state purposes only
amounts to fifteen cents per cap
ita. State expenditures amount to
nearly s1.75 per capita, exclusive of
sinking fund on state debt.
Some people are very fond of calling
our attention to Texas and California,
Two states of great size. Texas had
a vast domain of public land when it
was annexed to the union, every acre
Of which Injured to its benefit. 1t still
has sixty eight millions of acres un-
of, territory larger than
any state except California and New
ada. The revenue from all the lands
within its borders have been paid into /
ii = - A. A.